leeham_69 Posted 13 March, 2017 Share Posted 13 March, 2017 Just a musing given the lack of activity since the final... what do you think Puel's plans for our formation and lineup are next year? He obviously abandoned the midfield diamond, but with Gab and Boufal in + a full pre season, it's not beyond the realms of reason that it will make a comeback. I personally prefer the 4-2-3-1 as do many others - evidenced by the goals we score when we shape up that way - but that is not without its flaws too. It uses only one of our 3/4 strikers (assuming fitness), and we don't really have an ideal partner for Romeu in the DM positions. Reverting to to the diamond doesn't solve this, but it does remove a position with no specialist (DM) and adds a specialist (FWD) elsewhere instead. Two good goalscorers up front together is a combination not seen for a fairly long time at Saints and they could form a fairly lethal combination. I am a big Austin fan and don't want to see him frozen out of the squad - and from one point of view using the formation that gets as many of your best players on the pitch makes a lot of sense. In the perfect world I'd rather see investment in a really dynamic central midfielder to improve the 5-man midfield but could go either way for me. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted 13 March, 2017 Share Posted 13 March, 2017 Just a musing given the lack of activity since the final... what do you think Puel's plans for our formation and lineup are next year? He obviously abandoned the midfield diamond, but with Gab and Boufal in + a full pre season, it's not beyond the realms of reason that it will make a comeback. I personally prefer the 4-2-3-1 as do many others - evidenced by the goals we score when we shape up that way - but that is not without its flaws too. It uses only one of our 3/4 strikers (assuming fitness), and we don't really have an ideal partner for Romeu in the DM positions. Reverting to to the diamond doesn't solve this, but it does remove a position with no specialist (DM) and adds a specialist (FWD) elsewhere instead. Two good goalscorers up front together is a combination not seen for a fairly long time at Saints and they could form a fairly lethal combination. I am a big Austin fan and don't want to see him frozen out of the squad - and from one point of view using the formation that gets as many of your best players on the pitch makes a lot of sense. In the perfect world I'd rather see investment in a really dynamic central midfielder to improve the 5-man midfield but could go either way for me. thoughts? A 4-3-3 (or diamond, it's the same thing) adds a central midfielder, we go from 2 to 3. We are playing 4-4-2 (or 4-2-3-1, it's the same thing) with Ward-Prowse on the right largely because we don't have anyone to play in the RF position. Redmond is better cutting in from the left as his left foot isn't that great, Tadic has played on the right more often than anyone and hasn't been particularly comfortable there, Boufal has been struggling for fitness and Sims is still just a kid. Expect us to revert to 4-3-3 next season, that is how we are supposed to play throughout the club. And we will not play Gabbiadini and Austin together at all. It wouldn't work, Austin would just get in Gabbiadini's way. He will probably be backup. Or sold, suspect his all round game is not good enough for what Puel wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwantsapint Posted 13 March, 2017 Share Posted 13 March, 2017 Who were the last proper strike partnership Lambert / jay Rod Lambert / sharp Lambert / barnard Saga / jones Rasiak/jones Beattie / Phillips Beattie / pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Who were the last proper strike partnership Lambert / jay Rod Lambert / sharp Lambert / barnard Saga / jones Rasiak/jones Beattie / Phillips Beattie / pahars Gabbiadini/Tadic? Ok...a no. 9 and a no.10...but maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Gabbiadini/Austin/Long/Gallagher (+youngsters like Seager and Olumola) seems like a decent complement of strikers, providing Puel (if it is indeed Puel who is manager next season, and I think it will be) can keep them all happy. Austin is the one that I feel won't like being second fiddle to someone else. As for JRod, I feel a bit sad as it's not his fault he got badly injured really, but even though he's shown flashes of his old self, we should really be letting him try his luck at form somewhere else. The problem will arise if Gabbiadini is fancied by others in the summer and the board sees a huge profit for someone we've only had for 6 months as hard to resist. Then we'll need to be in the market for a new striker and hope he's as prolific as Gab has been since he arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Gabbiadini/Austin/Long/Gallagher (+youngsters like Seager and Olumola) seems like a decent complement of strikers, providing Puel (if it is indeed Puel who is manager next season, and I think it will be) can keep them all happy. Austin is the one that I feel won't like being second fiddle to someone else. As for JRod, I feel a bit sad as it's not his fault he got badly injured really, but even though he's shown flashes of his old self, we should really be letting him try his luck at form somewhere else. The problem will arise if Gabbiadini is fancied by others in the summer and the board sees a huge profit for someone we've only had for 6 months as hard to resist. Then we'll need to be in the market for a new striker and hope he's as prolific as Gab has been since he arrived. Gabbiadini will be here next season. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfahaji Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 I'd also like to see Austin competing for a spot in the starting line up, and your suggestion of adding a specialist FWD in place of a DM seems sound. Unfortunately where it falls down is that the diamond formation also requires two central midfielders. I'd say they are most likely to be all rounders, or 'shuttle' midfielders. Certainly at least one of them would be. So in actual fact, the non-specialist DM you refer to would end up just being one of the CMs, and Austin would ultimately come in at the expense of Redmond or Tadic. Also, Cartman's assertion that 4-3-3 played throughout the club is the same as the diamond is probably incorrect. I can't vouch for exactly what formation the club plays throughout the academy levels, but when I hear 4-3-3 I assume they mean three central midfielders (usually 1 DM & 2 'shuttlers', but could also be 2 DMs & 1 more attacking player), with a centre forward and 2 wide forwards. It was the way we played with Pochettino, and most of the time under Koeman, it is the formation most teams prefer and if it is interchangeable with any other formation, it would be 4-5-1 (depending on whether you class the wingers as midfielders or forwards). The diamond formation, while very similar is more like a 4-4-2, because the two up front play closer together, the central player is more like a no. 10 rather than a CF, and the width is created by the fullbacks. It's the difference between 4-1-2-1-2 and 4-1-2-2-1. Subtle but significant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webby Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 I think we work best in a 4231 or 4411 as it becomes without the ball. I think the 2 wide men have slightly less defensive responsibilities than the 2 CMs in the 433 system. The 1 DM in the 433 gets overrun if the 2 CMs can't help him, but they are also expected to link with the attack. The 433 has 2 lines (excluding the defence), the 3 in midfield and the 3 in attack (I know they're not exactly rigid), the 4231 has 3 lines, the 2 holding, the 3 supporting and the 1 attacker. It offers scope to play in-between the lines more which helps link midfield to attack. I think Tadic talked about groups of 3 on each side of the pitch. I not sure if he means his link up with redmond and gabbi on one side and JWP and Gabbi on the other, or if he means the full back and the wide man. Whatever, these 'threes' are important for linking up and creating space and interplay to create chances for the man ahead of them; Gabbi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webby Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 The diamond formation, while very similar is more like a 4-4-2, because the two up front play closer together, the central player is more like a no. 10 rather than a CF, and the width is created by the fullbacks. It's the difference between 4-1-2-1-2 and 4-1-2-2-1. Subtle but significant! It didn't really work like this, certainly not in the beginning at least. The 2 strikers were miles apart, they were around the corners of the 18yd box. It got a bit better but not great imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavis17 Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Austin will be on the bench unless Gabbiadini isn't available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 I think we work best in a 4231 or 4411 as it becomes without the ball. I think the 2 wide men have slightly less defensive responsibilities than the 2 CMs in the 433 system. The 1 DM in the 433 gets overrun if the 2 CMs can't help him, but they are also expected to link with the attack. The 433 has 2 lines (excluding the defence), the 3 in midfield and the 3 in attack (I know they're not exactly rigid), the 4231 has 3 lines, the 2 holding, the 3 supporting and the 1 attacker. It offers scope to play in-between the lines more which helps link midfield to attack. I think Tadic talked about groups of 3 on each side of the pitch. I not sure if he means his link up with redmond and gabbi on one side and JWP and Gabbi on the other, or if he means the full back and the wide man. Whatever, these 'threes' are important for linking up and creating space and interplay to create chances for the man ahead of them; Gabbi. But that's not how we played 4-3-3 at all. We played it with five lines. *------*------*------* ------------*----------- -------*----------*------ -----*---------------*---- ------------*-------------- The difference between that and our diamond was whether the central forward was in a "number 10" role, supporting two wider strikers or whether the central forward was a striker, supported by two wider players. The point is, our diamond and 4-3-3 were variations on the same theme, both with five lines. Now, in our 4231, we play more like four lines. Basically, we have made it more simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Austin will be on the bench unless Gabbiadini isn't available. Or sold.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfahaji Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 It didn't really work like this, certainly not in the beginning at least. The 2 strikers were miles apart, they were around the corners of the 18yd box. It got a bit better but not great imo. True, but I don't think the idea is for them to play as wingers, they're just meant to fulfil that role defensively and play more centrally when we attack. Unfortunately it's a big ask of the strikers - even the likes of Redmond and Long struggled with it, but someone like Austin was never going to be able to do it effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 A 4-3-3 (or diamond, it's the same thing) adds a central midfielder, we go from 2 to 3. We are playing 4-4-2 (or 4-2-3-1, it's the same thing) with Ward-Prowse on the right largely because we don't have anyone to play in the RF position. Redmond is better cutting in from the left as his left foot isn't that great, Tadic has played on the right more often than anyone and hasn't been particularly comfortable there, Boufal has been struggling for fitness and Sims is still just a kid. Expect us to revert to 4-3-3 next season, that is how we are supposed to play throughout the club. And we will not play Gabbiadini and Austin together at all. It wouldn't work, Austin would just get in Gabbiadini's way. He will probably be backup. Or sold, suspect his all round game is not good enough for what Puel wants. Any room in your team for Forster, mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted 14 March, 2017 Share Posted 14 March, 2017 Any room in your team for Forster, mate? No. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 Or sold.... No, he won't. We spent all season moaning about our lack of depth, why on earth would we go back to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 No, he won't. We spent all season moaning about our lack of depth, why on earth would we go back to that? Because Austin is injury prone need to get someone else in I would have thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfahaji Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 Because Austin is injury prone need to get someone else in I would have thought Trying to be pragmatic about the situation - Austin is most likely to be back up, or used in midweek-rotation, with Gabbiadini. Austin scores goals and is undoubtedly an asset. If he weren't injury prone he would be worth a lot more money. Are we going to go out and sign someone of equal ability for 15m-20m so they can sit on the bench? If Gabbiadini gets injured, and Austin then picks one up too, we play Shane Long. He might not be a reliable figurehead and goalscorer but he's not bad for a third 'emergency' option. We'd be unlucky to lose two or three strikers for a long and simultaneous period of time, though of course it can happen, but not sure we should be ploughing money into a back up striker when we have spots in the first XI (central midfield) to bolster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry12 Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 Ward-Prowse on the right largely because we don't have anyone to play in the RF position, says "Cartman". What about Hojberg, Clasie, Martina, Hesketh, Sims, Boufal? All better than Prowse, but Reed doesn't include them in the starting line up that he hands to Claude each match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 Ward-Prowse on the right largely because we don't have anyone to play in the RF position, says "Cartman". What about Hojberg, Clasie, Martina, Hesketh, Sims, Boufal? All better than Prowse, but Reed doesn't include them in the starting line up that he hands to Claude each match. Jesus christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Reece Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 Ward-Prowse on the right largely because we don't have anyone to play in the RF position, says "Cartman". What about Hojberg, Clasie, Martina, Hesketh, Sims, Boufal? All better than Prowse, but Reed doesn't include them in the starting line up that he hands to Claude each match. You have a strange obsession with Les Reed and JWP don't you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinK1961 Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 You have a strange obsession with Les Reed and JWP don't you... 36 posts and 34 of them slagging either Les Reed, JWP or Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted 15 March, 2017 Share Posted 15 March, 2017 I would like Puel to figure out a way to get Gabbi and Austin on the field together. That would be a really good goal scoring tandem, especially supported by Tadic, Boufal, and Redmond. This would be our most prolific team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now